Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

I need some help with a debate

Posted on: February 27, 2008 - 1:04pm

KaseyQuestions

Posts: 5

Joined: 2008-02-26

Offline

I need some help with a debate

Hello

My name is Kasey. I am heading a debate in my science class (even though we arent supposed to) with evolution vs creationism. I am on the evolultion side. I need help with finding and siting sources so my points will be valid and truthful..and also they need to help me make my point. Most of the students in my class are creationists with a very set frame of mind and rather ignorant. Most of them even refuse to pay attention to the lesson which doesnt hep me much. My brother has helped me with some things but I want to be able to see both sides of it so I guess I can more prove them wrong than they can prove me wrong. Are there any suggestions to help me at all? It would really help me out.

My name is Kasey. I am heading a debate in my science class (even though we arent supposed to) with evolution vs creationism. I am on the evolultion side. I need help with finding and siting sources so my points will be valid and truthful..and also they need to help me make my point. Most of the students in my class are creationists with a very set frame of mind and rather ignorant. Most of them even refuse to pay attention to the lesson which doesnt hep me much. My brother has helped me with some things but I want to be able to see both sides of it so I guess I can more prove them wrong than they can prove me wrong. Are there any suggestions to help me at all? It would really help me out.

Thanks Everyone,

Kasey

PS~ you can i-m me on my screen name feelgoodinc34

Hello, Kasey,

It sounds like you really want talk.origins, at http://www.talkorigins.org/ . This site is about atheism, which is completely different from evolution. Give a browse over there.

However, if you want a plan of debate, you should have a list of questions and assertions you think will be raised on the creationist side. The most imporant line of debate is going to be to nullify their assertions. So, if you could come up with a list of things you think they will say, that will help formulating a strategy. I'll be glad to help in whatever way I can.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

thanks you guys for all the help im a highschooler but i guess according to my teacher im "way above my level" so i just want to be able to descuss it intellegently but thanks for the help if anything else comes up please let me know you guys are amazing one problem i am having though is getting through to this one kid about the catholic church distorting the views of the pagans. i know that this will come up what can you guys help me with on that?

thanks you guys for all the help im a highschooler but i guess according to my teacher im "way above my level" so i just want to be able to descuss it intellegently but thanks for the help if anything else comes up please let me know you guys are amazing one problem i am having though is getting through to this one kid about the catholic church distorting the views of the pagans. i know that this will come up what can you guys help me with on that?

Ignore it. It's a non-sequitor, and has nothing to do with the debate. In fact, avoid any discussion of religion. Don't get baited into discussing whether or not God exists; that has nothing to do with the debate of evolution vs. creationism (or "Intelligent Design," as it's called these days). Stick to the basic facts: all evidence points to an ancient universe (10 to 15 billion years old, depending on who you talk to), and an old earth (4.5 billion years or so). Use only facts, not speculation. Use the speed of light, and the fact that we see galaxies several billion light-years away. That light had to have at least several billion years just to travel to get to us.

Talk about how evolution has made predictions in many of the sciences, such as biology, genetics, medicine, ecology, and even information theory; and each time, these predictions have been proven right. (Learn about at least a couple of examples of predictions upheld by evidence. Be prepared to answer the question, "Like what?" Have notes ready with the people, dates, and data.)

If they keep bringing up God, and how only God could've done any of it, you might ask one question: "Is there anything God can't do?" When they answer, "No," then you might ask, "What's the point of studying the universe, then? What's the point of science? What's the point of cars, or your XBox, or modern medicine, or any of these other conveniences and wonders you take for granted? Because science gave you all that. So if you're going to deny the truth of science, why don't you go home and throw away your iPod, and your XBox, and your asthma medicine, and everything else that is possible because of the truths of the universe that science has discovered."

Use that only as a last resort-- it's complete rhetoric, and adds no real value to the debate.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

What kind of debate is this and for what grade? In other words what is the objective for the discussion? There is nothing wrong with asking the other side for a framework that they will use. It gives both sides an idea where the other side is going for a more lively debate.

I would study some of the creationist claims at www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and try to anticipate their questions. There are quite a few standard arguements. I would spend a lot of time on transitional fossils and anticipate the attack that many of these fossils are faked. Also remember that biogenisis and evolution are 2 distict fields of study. Evolution doesn't have an answer for the origins of life.

One tactic I have used is to get them to admit that micro-evolution happens. If you can get them to admit micro-evolution occurs then you have them on the ropes. The problem is that most will not take the leap into macro-evolution. Young Earth creationism is still a big barrier to break because if the Earth is young macro-evolution can't take place. If they start saying the Earth is young ask for proof. At some point they will have refer to the bible.

This is a good chance to reiterate the scientific method because way too many people what scientific theories are vs scientific laws, hypothesis and just a "theory".

In just about any debate with creationists there will be an appeal to emotion with statements like, "Hitler was a Darwinist". If they attempt to get out of the context of the discussion (i.e. science vs philosophy) steer them back to the topic at hand and do not let them steer the debate to emotional responses.

Hope this helps a little bit. Good luck in representing.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

1) Public debate is as much about how you speak as what you say. People with poor positions can win public debates by handling the audience well.

2) If you know and recognize common fallacies, you can point them out immediately. Once you have dismissed something as a fallacy, DROP IT. In other words, if dude mentions god or religion, you say, "I'm sorry, Mr. Opponent. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology or abiogenesis. Your assertion is a red herring, so I will not address it. What's your next point?"

3) Creationism defeats itself in debate. Remember that all you have to do is let your opponent display his own defeat. This is not about you proving how much you know. It's about letting him lose. He'll do it if you let him. Sometimes less is more.

4) Remember, never ever forgetting, and always remembering.... REMEMBER... He who makes a claim must prove a claim. Do not let him get away with any unsupported propositions. If he can't prove it, insist that he removes it from his contentions.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

uh well heres a little more background for you guys to help you understand my 10th grade biology class situation. theres only 3 people i know in my class that believe in evolution. me and 2 of my friends. everyone else is either catholic or christian. they keep bringing up god and how life itself started on earth.. which i know for a fact has nothing to do with evolution itself. evolution only gives us a theory on how species got to their present state not how they were created. i guess im like stuck inbetween a rock and a hard place.. like im talking to a freakin brick wall.. it seems whenever i talk i get yelled at: example: my teacher asked me my views one day.. this girl blows up on me after i say it telling me i need to stop trying to convert people to my ways because im not right and i never will be right.. thats the kind of stuff im dealing with.. god is always involved in these conversations.. i need to get a way around that. any suggestions? i mean my whole class is 15,16,or 17 years old.. and 2/3rds have believed in religion and have never been able to think for themselves their whole life. i just want to know how alot of you were able to get around the message of god in these conversations. ive read the bible i know what it says.. so help.. please i need help... im an intellegent person.. i know what im talking about.. i just cant get across to these people.. what would you all do?

Critical thinking is a must. I think educating yourself on logical fallacies and how to think logically is one of the most important things you can learn. You will have to get them to think logically. Remember that a debate is supposed to be about determining the truth. How do you do that? You need some sort of criteria for determining what is and isn't valid reasoning. That criteria is logic.The first thing you should address is probably the need for evidence. How do you determine what is and isn't a rational belief? What makes something believable? The answer is evidence. That is the single most important thing you have to establish, and once you've established that, you've laid the groundwork for the rest. Once you get them to agree that evidence is what makes something believable, the rest shouldn't be too difficult. The sites linked to above should privde all the evidence you need to establish your case, and refute their "evidence." One point you might make is that, if creationists really think they have something of significance to say, why don't they submit it to a peer reviewed journal? Then census would sway accordingly.

If people are annoyed at you for trying to convert them, then don't. Just learn to think logically, and then you can demonstrate when others aren't. An easy way to see if something is logical is to apply the same kind of reasoning to something else and see if it holds. So if someone uses a flawed line of reasoning, apply it to something else to show how it's not right.

Some of the websites that have been mentioned here are good sources. but you might want to elaborate on the points that you are planning to bring up. I did the same thing when I was in highschool and I had the same type of audience to deal with.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

I can't imagine how evolution negates the need for a creator. As an atheist I still find that evolution and a possible creator can co-exist. You may be able to work that in somehow if they start appealing to emotions.

Some of the creationist arguments you may hear are irreducible complexity and recapitulation doctrine. The first one is kinda interesting, but the second discarded by scientists a long time ago, however it still does come up time to time.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

That's really tough to get ganged up on like that. I sympathize with you. When is your debate? Do you have time to practice debating online with creationists, or to watch some debates? I don't know of any sites in particular (besides here, but we don't get many creationists these days), but perhaps someone could recommend a lively site or chatroom where he can bone up on his debate skills.

I think the most important thing is to build up a tough skin. When you are outnumbered and drowned by others' ignorance and arrogance, it can feel pretty overwhelming. A debate is a good format, as long as it is fairly moderated. It gives you a chance to state your case without being interrupted.

One way to build up a tough skin is to turn it around on them. That's kind of the way we do things here. We constantly poke holes and poke more holes, all the while pointing out how ignorant and irrational people are. Like, "That argument is completely bogus because of X, Y, Z. You obviously have no understanding of evolutionary theory. And your arrogance just makes you look like a dick." That works well in an informal debate, but in a formal debate you should stick to the evidence and keep the tone a bit more civil. Still, it would be good for you personally to learn how to stick up for the facts in a bit of an aggressive manner. Turn their aggression around on them by pointing out how it is such a shameful character flaw.

Listen to some Greydon Square here. His songs are great inspiration for how to stick up for the facts. If you can, buy the whole album (mp3 would be fastest to get). It's actually a damn good album too.

Speaking of which, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier. But check out the RRS vs. Way of the Master debate here. That should give you an idea of how to keep the pressure on them instead of always being defensive. If you can get some inspiration from that, you should do just fine against some brainwashed 16 year olds.

Hey RRS peeps: Hey this makes me think we should have some sort of inspirational How To Debate IDiots package of material, like PDFs, collected web articles, cartoons, links to debates, even Greydon Square songs. Maybe make a free version or a deluxe version that people can buy to handle exactly this kind of situation. Stuck in a hick town surrounded by creationists? Get our How to Debate IDiots package and show 'em what's what! Something like that. What do you guys think? Could be pretty successful with the right kind of promotion a la Blasphemy Challenge. If we're trying to inspire people to stick up for rationality, let's make it as straightforward and fun as possible. I especially like the idea of including comics and music from Greydon. Stuff to spread the RRS style of taking theists apart.

I can't imagine how evolution negates the need for a creator. As an atheist I still find that evolution and a possible creator can co-exist. You may be able to work that in somehow if they start appealing to emotions.

Some of the creationist arguments you may hear are irreducible complexity and recapitulation doctrine. The first one is kinda interesting, but the second discarded by scientists a long time ago, however it still does come up time to time.

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one. Frankly though, even admitting the possibility, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of an outside influence on our evolution.

Infidels.org was linked to, and that's another great site with a lot of good content, though some of it may be a bit high level for high school. It has formal debates, among other resources.

Hey RRS peeps: Hey this makes me think we should have some sort of inspirational How To Debate IDiots package of material, like PDFs, collected web articles, cartoons, links to debates, even Greydon Square songs. Maybe make a free version or a deluxe version that people can buy to handle exactly this kind of situation. Stuck in a hick town surrounded by creationists? Get our How to Debate IDiots package and show 'em what's what! Something like that. What do you guys think? Could be pretty successful with the right kind of promotion a la Blasphemy Challenge. If we're trying to inspire people to stick up for rationality, let's make it as straightforward and fun as possible. I especially like the idea of including comics and music from Greydon. Stuff to spread the RRS style of taking theists apart.

That is a great fuckin' idea. I know I'm new here and all, but I second the motion.

Can I help? I'd like to help. Really. I'm not stoopid or anything.

Oh, and K: good luck. Knock 'em dead. I mean, not literally, as then you'll have to answer a lot of questions, fill out a lot of paperwork, maybe spend some time in jail. God, don't even get me started on that. But in the figurative sense: knock 'em dead.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one.

Tanath, so far in my research into evolution, it appears that evolutionary theory presupposes life, and merely explains how life progressed from a very simple state i.e. single cellular and multi cellular organisms. I think the science that you are referring to, which was already mentioned, is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the theoretical ways in which life arose judging from evidence we have today, of how things were in the past.

So, evolutionary theory by itself does not really address the origin of the life question i.e. the Creator question. Was there a Creator? Evolution would not attempt to answer that question. However, evolution would challenge and attempt to redefine the beliefs one may hold about how a hypothetical Creator made everything. Evolution would say that the Creator most likely didn't just breathe or speak and everything instantly came into existence how we see it all today. Rather, evolution would point to evidence for a very slow, and often extreme dumb (mindless), process of progression and development.

That's my humble two cents on the subject.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one.

Tanath, so far in my research into evolution, it appears that evolutionary theory presupposes life, and merely explains how life progressed from a very simple state i.e. single cellular and multi cellular organisms. I think the science that you are referring to, which was already mentioned, is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the theoretical ways in which life arose judging from evidence we have today, of how things were in the past.

You are correct. But I thought we were talking about the origins of humanity, not the origin of all life, which is why I didn't refer to abiogenesis.

Quote:

So, evolutionary theory by itself does not really address the origin of the life question i.e. the Creator question. Was there a Creator? Evolution would not attempt to answer that question. However, evolution would challenge and attempt to redefine the beliefs one may hold about how a hypothetical Creator made everything. Evolution would say that the Creator most likely didn't just breathe or speak and everything instantly came into existence how we see it all today. Rather, evolution would point to evidence for a very slow, and often extreme dumb (mindless), process of progression and development.

That's my humble two cents on the subject.

The nature of the origins of life is still being explored, but again, there is no evidence for a creator, nor any evidence of any need for one.

The nature of the origins of life is still being explored, but again, there is no evidence for a creator, nor any evidence of any need for one.

Agreed.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat

Hey RRS peeps: Hey this makes me think we should have some sort of inspirational How To Debate IDiots package of material, like PDFs, collected web articles, cartoons, links to debates, even Greydon Square songs. Maybe make a free version or a deluxe version that people can buy to handle exactly this kind of situation. Stuck in a hick town surrounded by creationists? Get our How to Debate IDiots package and show 'em what's what! Something like that. What do you guys think? Could be pretty successful with the right kind of promotion a la Blasphemy Challenge. If we're trying to inspire people to stick up for rationality, let's make it as straightforward and fun as possible. I especially like the idea of including comics and music from Greydon. Stuff to spread the RRS style of taking theists apart.

Not to mention the fact that invoking a creator is just plain useless and lazy. It answers nothing and leaves you with the more difficult question of who created the creator. Even if you take the 2001: A Space Oddessy aproach and say that life on Earth was started by aliens, that still does not solve the origin problem. Those aliens still had to evolve indipendently didn't they? That does not solve the problem it just moves it to another planet.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

How come we can prove evolution in other species? doesnt this mean that every species evolved? why are we exempt from this?

is that good?

Well, are they even going to accept that evolution has been demonstrated in other species? If you can get them to accept that, then yes, it's a valid point. And you can point to chromosome 2, among other things, as evidence that we have common ancestry.

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one.

Tanath, so far in my research into evolution, it appears that evolutionary theory presupposes life, and merely explains how life progressed from a very simple state i.e. single cellular and multi cellular organisms. I think the science that you are referring to, which was already mentioned, is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the theoretical ways in which life arose judging from evidence we have today, of how things were in the past.

So, evolutionary theory by itself does not really address the origin of the life question i.e. the Creator question. Was there a Creator? Evolution would not attempt to answer that question. However, evolution would challenge and attempt to redefine the beliefs one may hold about how a hypothetical Creator made everything. Evolution would say that the Creator most likely didn't just breathe or speak and everything instantly came into existence how we see it all today. Rather, evolution would point to evidence for a very slow, and often extreme dumb (mindless), process of progression and development.

That's my humble two cents on the subject.

If I remember correctly, the standard deist position is that a creator made the laws of the universe and simply left us to our own devices.I don't believe in a creator, but if there were a creator the chances it would be more like what the deists call providence is the most rational. For now we can only speculate about the process of biogenesis, but that lack of knowledge doesn't point to creation by an omni-potent being necessary.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

Watch this video by Ken Miller. He demolishes ID. It's two hours, and very detailed, so you probably won't be able to take such a detailed approach in your debate, but it should give you some rock-solid confidence in evolution over ID.

If your classmates are hardcore creationists then they likely don't accept evolution in any species. So I would not go that rout. The basic stratagy that creationists have always used is to try to make evolution look flawed by pointing out the gaps in our knowlege. They say it is "just a theory" and point to the fact that not all species have known transitional forms (some even say no transitional forms exist which is a flat out lie) and that natural selection has never been observed. The idea is that if they can make evolution look like it is full of holes then the genesis creation story is the only alternative. You need to be firm about a few key points...

1. Make sure you point out the fact that evolution is the currently accepted model for how life came to exist on Earth. You have the authority of the entire scientific community on you side. It is not up to you to prove evolution. Your opponent must try to prove that evolution is false. Furthermore he/she must also demonstrate that creationism is a viable alternative. Remember, even if evolution were not correct that does not mean that the story of genesis is. Don't let them get away with saying or implying that creationism should win by default. Ask them to show why creationism is a better scientific theory. What kind of "research" do creationist institutions do? What evidence for creation (not just against evolution) have they come up with? The answer is none. Check out this website for some info on the "Institute for Creation Research" (ICR) it should help with this.

2. The fact that not everything is yet known about how evolution works does not invalidate it. There is nothing in science that is fully understood. That is not a weakness. That is what makes science exciting and able to change to fit new information. There are just as many gaps in our theory of gravity but does that mean that gravity is not real? The same holds true for evolution. Scientists debate the details of how evolution works. That is where the "theory" of evolution comes in. But nobody who is respected in the scientific community denies that it happened. Evolution is scientific fact!

3. Transitional forms do exist and are known from the fossil record, you can find some good examples on line (look up "archaeopteryx.&quot Transitional forms are "links" between a species and its evolutionary ancestor. They look like an in between version of the species and show how the species evolved from its ancestor. It is true that transitional forms are not known for every species but that is because fossils are rare. Fossilization doesn't happen all that often. Even so, new "missing links" are being found all of the time. Also, there are examples of natural selection being observed in nature. Two classic examples are the peppered moth and penicilin.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

How does evolution not negate the need for a creator? Even if evolution and a creator co-existed, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't negate the need for one.

Tanath, so far in my research into evolution, it appears that evolutionary theory presupposes life, and merely explains how life progressed from a very simple state i.e. single cellular and multi cellular organisms. I think the science that you are referring to, which was already mentioned, is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis explains the theoretical ways in which life arose judging from evidence we have today, of how things were in the past.

So, evolutionary theory by itself does not really address the origin of the life question i.e. the Creator question. Was there a Creator? Evolution would not attempt to answer that question. However, evolution would challenge and attempt to redefine the beliefs one may hold about how a hypothetical Creator made everything. Evolution would say that the Creator most likely didn't just breathe or speak and everything instantly came into existence how we see it all today. Rather, evolution would point to evidence for a very slow, and often extreme dumb (mindless), process of progression and development.

That's my humble two cents on the subject.

If I remember correctly, the standard deist position is that a creator made the laws of the universe and simply left us to our own devices.I don't believe in a creator, but if there were a creator the chances it would be more like what the deists call providence is the most rational. For now we can only speculate about the process of biogenesis, but that lack of knowledge doesn't point to creation by an omni-potent being necessary.

Don't let my tag fool you, I wasn't trying to suggest that what I said pointed to a need for a creator. I try and leave my scientific opinions and religious opinions seperate unless I explicitly say differently.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat

You have the authority of the entire scientific community on you side. It is not up to you to prove evolution. Your opponent must try to prove that evolution is false.

NO NO NO! Definitely don't take this approach. Sorry, Roc, but this is totally wrong. The thing that evolution has over creationism is that it does hold up to scientific inquiry! Don't throw away your strongest advantage! Yes, you have the entire scientific community on your side, but if your opponenets are going to assert that creationism is true, then they must prove creationism. The proof of their proposition would necessarily disprove yours. Don't skip a step and give them an undue advantage.

Anyway, here's how it should go in a nutshell:

Kasey: Primer on evolution, eukaryotes and prokaryotes, sexual vs asexual, recombination, crossover, point mutation, Muller's Ratchet, etc... Ladies and gentlemen, virtually all biologists on the planet (Well over 99%) know that all of these concepts are true, for the predictions made with evolutionary theory have allowed us to make incredible advances in medicine, gene therapy, cloning, etc. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In the history of evolutionary science, we have thousands of advances that are direct results of predictions from the theory of evolution (Provide examples.) Now, I offer a challenge to my opponents. Please provide documentation of one advance in modern medicine that has been accurately predicted and brought to fruition using only Creation Science, and eschewing the principles of evolution.

When you're done with all that, go back to a primer on debate and critical thinking, and explain again that anyone making a claim must prove their own claim. You've done your job. Now, let the opponent prove their own claim with as much detail and scientific accuracy.

****

See? No need to get into the whole "Disprove evolution" thing. That's getting into treacherous and illogical territory. Granted, in many formal debates, there is a negative and a positive, and all the negative must do is disprove the positive to win, BUT, the positive must first make an adequate case for itself, or the negative need not respond at all, so there is still a burden of positive proof. Also, this is not that kind of debate, for each side is making their own positive claim. In this case, the winner is the side that provides a more compelling case for their positive claim.

Finally, keep in mind that a debate can be won or lost before the cases are stated. Make sure that you are thoroughly versed in logic, and know how to defend the notion that the positive claimant must defend his own claim. Make sure to include this in your opening statement, with clarity, and without any wiggle room for the opponent.

Quote:

3. Transitional forms do exist and are known from the fossil record, you can find some good examples on line (look up "archaeopteryx.&quot Transitional forms are "links" between a species and its evolutionary ancestor.

I would also avoid this approach. Kasey, everything that has ever lived was a transitional organism. "Species" is a rather arbitrary method of categorizing things. It's not a description of the reality of evolution. Consider the fact that there is no such thing as a monkey who looks at her new baby one day, and it's a human. For the sake of illustration, imagine that there are 10,000 evolutionary steps between Homo erectus and Homo sapien. Now, imagine that each of 10,000 generations produces one descendant (out of thousands!) who advances one step. In 10,000 generations, you have a human, right?

What you have to consider is that for each of those 10,000 generations, there were thousands of individuals who were NOT on the path to humanity -- they died childless, or their children did, or their great, great, great, great grandchildren did. Though none of their offspring's descendants are alive today, they were part of the process, and they could well have produced an entirely different 'species.' Yet, if we find one of their fossils today, we might well call them Homo erectus.

Now, that illustration is horribly simplified, because every human on the planet today is genetically different, and might be the father or mother of an entirely new species. We will not know, however, because it will be thousands of generations before this species is clearly delineated enough for a future scientist to put it in a separate box from Homo sapien.

Any one of us. Maybe you, maybe me, maybe Kelly or Brian. Any of us could be the father or mother of a new species, but species are only identified after the fact.

Does that make sense to you?

Having said that, we do have fossil evidence of species that became other species. We have a really awesome fossil record of the horse, for example. We have tons of such evidence. The trap in this is conceding a point to creationists by allowing them to persist in the belief that "species" means anything concrete outside of science books. Everything is transitional, because natural selection is at work in every single organism that lives.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Don't let my tag fool you, I wasn't trying to suggest that what I said pointed to a need for a creator. I try and leave my scientific opinions and religious opinions seperate unless I explicitly say differently.

You are a wise man. I wish more could do the same.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

Here's something we could try. Post some of the arguments that you plan on using here, and I (and maybe some other people on this board) will respond as if I was a creationist. That way you have an idea of what the creationists are probably going to respond with, and you will know how to refute it.

Granted, I'm not actually a creationist, so I might not be able to twist my mind around the same way they do, but I think I can get close.

Having everyone tell you to "read this" and giving you advice on how to argue is nice and all, but you're going to need a bit of practice before you get into this debate. So, if this sounds good to you, post an argument and I'll refute it.

"I may be going to hell in a rocketship, but at least I get to ride in a rocketship. You have to climb those damn stairs. " - Katie Volker

Here's something we could try. Post some of the arguments that you plan on using here, and I (and maybe some other people on this board) will respond as if I was a creationist.

That's a great idea.

Kasey, if you're still paying attention to this thread, why don't you post a draft of your presentation. I was a Christian for a long time, and I guarantee I can give you as good an argument as any high school Christian opponent. I'll be happy to help you with that if you'd like.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin